C’est La Vie en bleu

BioShock Infinite and Burial at Sea Episode 1 spoilers follow ahead.

In another parallel reality, Irrational Games is working on another BioShock with Ken Levine at the helm. In our universe, it’s completely wishful thinking. Irrational’s last piece of work concludes the two-part Burial at Sea expansion of BioShock Infinite. The second episode picks up a few moments after the first. Elizabeth has successfully killed the last remaining Comstock and finds herself caught up with the revolutionary figure, Atlas. Elizabeth feels the weight of guilt over using the little sister named Sally as bait and strikes a deal with Atlas, who has the girl. For a few minutes, you seem to have a solid, linear understanding of what’s going on. Given that this is a game of the Shock series, you’re thrown off course in your knowledge of what’s going on and who’s who. In the spirit of Infinite, confusion comes in the form of metaphysics.

A BioShock Infinite veteran who hasn’t played the first game might not get the same reaction or understanding to all of the revelations that play out. There’s still an optional BioShock 1 recap that you can view before you hop into Episode 2, but there are a lot of callbacks to the original that are missed with the recap. These moments feel like an ode to the fans and I couldn’t help but feel thrilled to see most of them play out. Part of this also comes around as an issue as there are segments of the episode that did feel stretched out for the sake of tying this universe to Elizabeth’s. This all might seem convoluted with the necessity of its backstory, but it works because Burial at Sea is for the veterans, especially those of the original.

Actress Courtnee Draper returns as Elizabeth with fine execution. She allows Elizabeth to feel different from the innocent one in Infinite and the darker, grittier one in Episode 1. We can accredit the scriptwriting to this as well, but Draper really shows off Elizabeth’s loneliness and slow loss of sanity. There are points of the game where we really do feel like we’re in the mind of Elizabeth. Episode 2 utilizes her bookworm knowledge and even goes as far to illustrate it with unique blueprint-like animations.

What separates Episode 2 from the rest of the series is the incorporation of stealth. While playing as Elizabeth who, by the way, doesn’t have her ability to alter the world around her, players will become dependent on the newly introduced stealth mechanics. It’s convenient – I know, but it (sort of) explains how Elizabeth is now a normal person, I think.

The stealth is a welcome addition and it works surprisingly well. Episode 2 doesn’t allow the gun-blazing-Booker mechanic of Infinite and it doesn’t even encourage the part-stealth, part-action approach in Episode 1. Instead, it goes completely into stealth territory; having Elizabeth use sound distractions to evade being detected and using a crossbow equipped with sleep-tranquilizing darts.

There’s even a plasmid that allows the player to go into an invisible, ethereal-like state in which you can also see through walls. It heavily compliments the stealth approach and helps you carefully plan out your next plan from point A to point B. At one point, I fully upgraded this specific plasmid so that it didn’t use any EVE if I was standing still. Having these two upgrades gave me a massive advantage over the AI to the point where playing on the hardest difficulty with this plasmid was a cakewalk. It also brought out the worst of the AI, showcasing the obvious: the enemies in Infinite were obviously not initially designed with stealth mechanics in mind. In the end, most of Elizabeth’s foes become nothing more than foolish once she’s fully upgraded.

Unlike the first episode, Episode 2 allows for more thoughtful exploration. The brevity and lack of content of Episode 1 is something that kept it back from being a satisfying BioShock experience. Here, Rapture comes alive through the progression of story and discovery of audio logs. Exploration is certainly encouraged and pleasantly rewarded.

The more I played Episode 2, the more engrossed I became with the gameplay and Rapture. Sure, I was pretty much a ghost that wandered the areas of Rapture knocking out every splicer I snuck up on, but I preferred this type of gameplay over BioShock Infinite’s. Trying to uncover every single detail felt natural and I never felt like I was going off-course. Even the fetch quests were something I looked forward to because it gave me another chance to backtrack to an area I haven’t felt like I didn’t fully explore.

For the most part, Burial at Sea feels like the ultimate fan-service and that’s okay. The universe of BioShock becomes more distinctive and unique with Episode 2. With this being Irrational’s last outing, finishing the episode was bittersweet. Given its complete scope, this episode feels like a must-play for any fan of the series. There’s about five-to-six hours worth of exploring and hiding to do before you realize that it’s all over. Episode 2 expands on the lore and deepens the connection between the player and the series.

Verdict: 8.5 out of 10

Burial at Sea Episode 2 accomplishes what Episode 1 couldn’t: become the essential tie-in between BioShock and BioShock Infinite. Despite a few shortcomings in gameplay balance and lore additions, Episode 2 manages at times to be more interesting and accessible than Infinite. In its own terms, it serves as a suitable ending to the BioShock universe and is even better represented as an appropriate swan song of a talented studio.

Chad Patrick is a freelance writer. Would you kindly follow him on Twitter?

Metal... Gear?!

Metal Gear Solid titles tend to cultivate through distinctive qualities that separate them from the other titles within the franchise. The latest entry to the series, Ground Zeroes, is representative of this tendency to an abnormal extent. Plenty of signature core mechanics that have become comfortably familiar throughout the series are nowhere to be found. Kojima’s new vision for his signature franchise tackles bold ambitions and allows this Metal Gear to be the most unique, albeit construed title given its role as a prologue.

Acting as the setup for the full fledged Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, Ground Zeroes picks up a year after the events of Peace Walker. We travel back in time yet again to fill in the role of the heroic prodigy Big Boss. Sent on a mission to infiltrate Camp Omega, you are tasked to rescue a familiar acquaintance.

Given the short length of the prologue, this allows this specific storyline to be the least convoluted. However, there’s still a substantial amount of background to fully comprehend what’s going on; and on top of that, there’s a lot of story to uncover with tapes. If you haven’t played Peace Walker – even if you’re a long-time fan of the franchise – you probably won’t get the emotional response that’s intended in Ground Zeroes. The story is more justified as a short wrap-up for Peace Walker more so than a prologue to The Phantom Pain.

Kojima’s directorial return for another Metal Gear shines (quite literally) in Ground Zeroes. It’s apparent that the cinematic flair that accompanies the series is more developed than ever – especially with the stunning Fox Engine. There isn'ta dense amount of cutscenes here, which is unusual for a Metal Gear title. In fact, the few cutscenes we get aren’t at all lengthy compared to those in the past, but they still perfectly showcase how far the cinematography has advanced.

While the series always had some bit of cartoony and comedic undertones, Ground Zeroes yields a darker, more serious tone. The humor that we’re familiar with is still there, but we’re caught off guard with the grim nature of the title. There are moments that will make you feel uncomfortable in the 1-to-2 hour experience. Part of the reasoning for this shift in tone is to make everything feel more real. Kojima has also stated he wanted Big Boss to feel more human.

There was heavy backlash to the news that long-time Snake voice actor, David Hayter, was being replaced by acting veteran Kiefer Sutherland. At first, it felt like I was playing a totally different character. By the end of the game, I was won over by the expert performance and portrayal of Big Boss. It still felt like a totally different Snake, but it’s apparent that this is what’s intended for the new direction of the series.

Usually accompanying any Metal Gear title would be cardboard boxes, rations, weapon slots, an alert timer, and codec –these are all missing in Ground Zeroes. This drastic change in the core mechanics and tropes really sets this game apart from the past titles. Now we are given limited inventory, the ability to mark enemies, and even the ability to commandeer vehicles. The unsettling thing about the change in formula is that it works.

While the majority of fans were worried about the departure of the classic formula, abandoning sentiment in favor of better gameplay mechanics produced good results. I never felt so free and in control in a Metal Gear title before. Everything from the tight fixes of CQC to driving a truck feels natural and proves that Ground Zeroes caters to any approach. There’s still a heavy level of consequence as far as killing or tranquilizing an enemy.

Big Boss feels like he actually has weight in the world this time in the sense that I couldn’t do all of the acrobatic stunts that I was able to before. It makes the stealth mechanic of the game feel more challenging and Snake feels vulnerable at every second there’s a guard in sight. I was under the impression that the game would be made easy with the newly introduced reflex mode that slows down time whenever Snake is detected to allow a quick reaction to prevent an alert phase. This isn't the case as I've only found myself using this feature a few times. With the other instances of reflex mode, I found myself too far from the enemy to take my last resort shot.

Ground Zeroes offers a small amount of side ops missions for those seeking more content. These missions offer a lot of variety but some still fall flat since they don’t give as much freedom as the main mission. It feels like cheap a way to prolong the playtime of the game once the credits have rolled. I’m glad those missions are there, don’t get me wrong, but something still feels lacking in the whole package.

The twists and turns that aren’t a stranger to any of the other Metal Gear titles aren’t here. Take it for what it is, but Ground Zeroes teases and sets up more than it satisfies and wraps up. Camp Omega – while it is beautiful in the Fox Engine – falls flat as an interesting location in the universe. Compared to Camp Omega, the tanker level in MGS 2 (which in part served as a demo bundled with Zone of Enders) had more depth and character.

What shines in Ground Zeroes aside from the handful of lens flares is the quality and careful tethering to the formula. It doesn’t feel like the franchise we’ve been playing for almost 16 years. What keeps it connected to the series are the characters, story, and the small amount of familiar tropes we’re left with. The small package might be too little for even the most dedicated fans but it still packs a punch for those who can’t wait for the rest of Metal Gear Solid V.

Verdict: 7.5 out of 10

With the long awaited return of Metal Gear Solid, Kojima gave us what we weren’t expecting. Ground Zeroes will undoubtedly surprise long-time veterans as a worthy entry to the series. It’s the boldest outing of the franchise yet, but it still feels hindered by its role as a prologue.

As an enthusiast for both films and video games, I hardly found myself frustrated over the lack of an established film adaptation of a game. The experience of a video game isn’t synonymous with that of a film; one relies on the interaction of the audience while the other plays itself out. It’s apparent that both mediums have taken notes of the other’s aesthetics and incorporated it to their own. This allowed for the heightened tension of cinematography within certain films and the intricate narrative focus in video games. While the elements within each respective medium have been applied to the other, there’s still that upper-level demand to craft the perfect combination of the two. With the recent announcement of a big-screen adaptation for The Last of Us and the polarizing reaction to it, I decided to dive deep into the difficult relationship between film and video games.

Being adapted to another form of media obviously isn’t mutually exclusive to video games. There have been tons of video game adaptations for movies; some easy for one to pick up, while others you just want to throw out in a New Mexico landfill. In fact, the first involvement between gaming and film was a movie-licensed video game some 30 years back called Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is based on the first Indiana Jones movie of the same name. Released on the Foreman grill-esque home console Atari 2600, this was the first ever video game adaptation of a movie. The second video game tie-in of a movie was released a month later and was conveniently based on another Spielberg-directed film, E.T. It was also released for the Atari 2600 and was critically panned. Today it stands as one of the worst games of all time and is often accredited to playing a central role in the video game crash of 1983.

Luckily, amidst the 30 years of cross media marketing, there have been a few decent video game tie-ins. Spider-Man 2, Goldeneye, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and the triple crossed marketed Lego series video games – these are all fairly established game titles that emerged triumphantly from the rubble of tie-in failures. It took years of trial-and-error to develop some sort of successful video game tie-in that’s critically accepted within the community. Developing a prominent movie-tie in for a video game, however, proves to be a struggle today.

The gaming community and even some film fanatics loathe over the mention of film adaptations of video games whether they be from the past, present, or future. Japan has been releasing tie-ins of their acclaimed franchises (Super Mario Bros., Pokémon, Street Fighter, etc.) since 1986. The first movie based on a video game was the straight-to-VHS Japanese-animated Super Mario Bros.: Peach-Hime Kyushutsu Dai Sakusen! released in July 1986. I put it upon myself to watch the animation to get an idea of how it would’ve been received back then. Needless to say, I didn’t get too far, but that didn’t stop me from enjoying the few pieces of the movie with a childhood sentiment. The animation predates the notorious live-action Super Mario Bros. movie by seven years. The first of its kind, this live-action adaptation was regrettably released in the US in May 1993.

Super Mario Bros. was a one-sided critical and commercial failure. However, that didn’t stop good ol’ Hollywood from trying to bring video games to the big screen (and in some cases straight-to-DVD). In the following years up to today, there have been a handful of live-action film adaptations: Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, to name a few. Some animated adaptations have come around as well, though less popular outside of their respective fanbase: FFVII: Advent Children and Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn. If you stretch it long enough, the live action Super Mario Bros. is pretty influential in a bizarre way. This was a huge failure of a movie but yet people decided to capitalize on its market premise because it had a certain potential. There have only been a few film tie-ins since then that were commercially successful: the two Lara Croft movies and the Resident Evil series. Although they do succeed in the box office, these movies fail miserably in the critical department. Part of the reason why these movie tie-ins are terrible is simply because of the source material.

There’s a healthy amount of articles and individuals out there that give Hollywood flak for constantly barraging the consumer with bad adaptations. Now, is this an issue within the adapted source material or is it Hollywood’s habit of making things, well… “Hollywood?” Looking at the history of film adaptations in regards to playwrights and novels would yield interesting results. There have been tons of brilliant film adaptations like The Maltese Falcon, The Godfather, To Kill a Mockingbird, and so on and so forth. These are films that didn’t do much chopping of the source material in transition to the big screen. Sure, the films I’ve mentioned are older films that were back in Hollywood’s silver screen heyday, but film adaptations of recent time have been almost been, if not equally fantastic. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Road, The Silence of the Lambs, and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo definitely hold up to the source material without straying too far off. Don’t forget that most decisions made by upper-levels are always about money. It’s hard for us to call these films cash-grabs because they do the transition from the novel to the big screen so well. We’re left to wonder why the same thing can’t happen to our beloved video game franchises.

When you look at the stories of video games, they wouldn’t bode well as classic examples of literature. Most stories we play end up on par with average action-adventure titles or even B-movies. Of course, that’s not what most of us want from video games and it’s certainly not why most developers make them. Yet somehow these above or below average stories just work in the form of a video game because of the interaction. The biggest advantage to the gaming medium is the interaction between the player and the progression of the 10 to 12 hour journey. Shoehorning the premise of a video game into a 2 to 3 hour non-interactive experience just wouldn’t work and it’s why it hasn’t worked all of these years. It works the other way around too: the reason why most video game tie-ins of movies don’t work is because with film, we’re supposed to sit down and watch how things play out – not play it out ourselves.

I can see where devoted Last of Us fans are coming from. This is a story that should be experienced within the medium it was developed for. We can argue for a completely different story set with characters we haven’t seen before. However, doing just that would strip its nature as a “video game adaptation” and end up being more of an expansion to a video game canon.

Writer of the novel Cloud Atlas (which had been adapted into film), David Mitchell said, “Any adaptation is a translation, and there is such a thing as an unreadably faithful translation; and I believe a degree of reinterpretation for the new language may be not only inevitable but desirable.” There’s a certain sentiment that leaves many gamers concerned whenever their favorite game comes under the Hollywood spotlight. Games aren’t supposed to be experienced in this Hollywood-manner on the big screen; specific tones, reactions, and stories are exclusive to the gameplay experience. To some fans, taking the name of an established game and translating it to another medium would strip it of its unique nature.

The desperate struggle to marry video game source material to the big screen seems pointless to many. Studios already bonded the aesthetics of cinematic storytelling to video games with a unique flair; The Last of Us and Metal Gear Solid both come testament to this narrative talent. The aesthetics of video games have been merged with film cinematography as demonstrated in Elysium and the two latest Star Trek films. As a lover of both gaming and film, it’s great to see both forms of media prove beneficial to each other. I’ll admit I don’t think there is a need for an established film adaptation to a game, but I’m not going to dismiss the fascination I’ll have once that comes around.

Chad Patrick is a freelance writer who actually enjoyed Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie. Follow him on Twitter and on this blog.

Just like the main game it expands upon, The Last of Us: Left Behind left players like me to dwell on the qualities of the experience. When I say “qualities,” I’m not talking about the technical qualities. Don’t get me wrong -- from a technical view, the DLC is near flawless and damn impressive. But that’s not why I’m writing this; there’s a huge deal of fine-tuning that was put forth in the storyline. These characters, sequence of events, and themes are all products of the careful craftsmanship. This type of attention to detail is easy to recognize, but sometimes also easy to miss.

Keza MacDonald of IGN had a brilliant write-up on the significance of Left Behind. There is yet again another push forward in narrative that keeps the player at a personal level. MacDonald’s article covers the themes of adolescence and friendship that emerges from the story.

In my review, I mention the contrast between companionship and loneliness. When I first booted up Left Behind, I expected to only play the events that focused on Ellie and Riley. What I got was more than that. Ellie’s struggle by her lonesome is chained and contrasted intricately with her adventure at the mall with Riley.

What I found worth mentioning as I was playing was the subtle attention to pictures. There’s a lonely body of a pharmacist who got locked away in the American Princess store. Along with the pharmacy key he had with him, there was a pre-apocalypse photo booth printout of him and his significant other. Flipping the image over revealed an intimate note: “Think about me while I’m off. I’ll be missing you, but not too much. – Laura.” Little is shown and said, but somehow I see the full picture: a portrait of a once happy couple that’s no more. Ellie and Riley’s amusing outing is juxtaposed with this when they come across a ShareSnap photo booth. It’s a touching segment to see the two take silly and animated shots together. The booth's printer was out of order, leaving their moment to be seized by memory.

As Ellie struggles onward, she comes across remnants of a helicopter crew – their bodies found segregated from one another. Notes and audio logs provide more insight to the drama that unfolded with the crew. We first learn about the helicopter accident and then the tragic sacrifice they had to endure with one of their crew members. As the story unfolds, we discover the desperation and fall out of the crew’s camaraderie. It isn’t until later when Ellie finds the corpse of Captain Regan. With her is a picture of the crew with the writing: “To the coolest Captain around! Here’s to another fine year. HAPPY B-DAY!"

Chuck Palahniuk wrote in his novel Lullaby, “The trick to forgetting the big picture is to look at everything close-up.” The pharmacist in the American Princess store was just another casualty among millions in the post-apocalyptic world. A closer look reveals part of his story, his image, and his relationship that he had while he was alive. The helicopter crew was just another group of survivors who did what they had to do to survive. A closer look at the picture of Captain Regan’s unit shows us the other side to the crew. Before all of this, they were companions who looked out for each other and considered one another family

Throwing back to MacDonald’s write-up, part of Left Behind is about maintaining friendships when there’s so much change going on. At one point, Ellie climbs through a breached ceiling and finds herself in a photo studio. The significance of pictures hit me once I looked around the studio. Here are more portraits of people –casualties of the post-infected world. There are family portraits and pictures of couples in the studio. It settles in the idea of how many personal struggles there are outside of the experiences of the pharmacist and Regan’s crew.

Our attention is never explicitly drawn towards the pictures on the walls, but I’ve got this feeling where I think Naughty Dog wanted us to notice them. It contributes ever so subtly to the threatening world that The Last of Us takes place in. Part of that technique to build the world with such small details nearly becomes artistic in its own right. This is a developer known for its narrative talent; they achieve it through script execution and subliminal nuances that allow the player to engross themselves even further.

It’s rare to have a game with a unique, meaningful focus on themes and story. That’s what sets Left Behind apart from everything else. We’re able to dissect the narrative and find things worth sharing. The thoughts and depth to The Last of Us lore is almost on the level of a film with merit. To have titles like Gone Home and The Last of Us is a breath of fresh air in the industry and I have hopes that both will pave way for a new approach on video game storytelling.

Chad Patrick is a freelance writer and loyal companion. Follow him on Twitter and this space.

Interactive Intimacy

The Last of Us is a testament to the narrative genius that resides within developer Naughty Dog. The title’s only single-player DLC, Left Behind, invites players to revisit the grim post-apocalyptic world with a generous portion of backstory. It capitalizes on what the core game did so well that kept players coming back.

Game directors Neil Druckmann and Bruce Straley could’ve gone to unknown territory with single-player content. There was opportunity to explore the journey of Joel’s brother, Tommy; the backstory of brothers Henry and Sam; the mystery behind the survivor, Ish; Marlene’s leadership campaign to the Fireflies – scenarios that aren’t known to players. Instead, they opted for a story in which we practically know the ending to.

Left Behind divulges more into the backstory of Ellie and her best friend, Riley. The script resonates the consciousness of childhood adventure and innocence, which is a welcome change of tone from the main game. Mind you, it still takes place in the same wicked and unforgiving world. Yet somehow there’s some breath of fresh air and an illusion of escape from all the dangers of the post-pandemic world.

There are moments in the writing that really push things forward. It takes a canon that people know about and makes bold moves in its script. Left Behind manages to be a perfect example of pushing the strengths of the “journey, not the destination” storytelling approach. We know what happens in the end prior before playing, but Druckmann’s writing convinces us that the events leading up to the ending is worth seeing.

Everything you would expect from a Naughty Dog title is bundled firmly in the two-to three-hour experience. There was an intelligent decision in which Left Behind embraces the atmosphere over gameplay. It takes advantage of what the main game did best: storytelling. The departure from an action-paced situation to a more intimate one allowed for a focused view on Ellie’s backstory.

There’s a seamless contrast between companionship and loneliness as everything progresses. Just like in The Last of Us, you’ll find scraps, pictures, and recordings of other people. These give other stories that explore the same themes companionship and loneliness. Little details like these give the world life.

The vulnerability and innocence of a young girl is often exploited and it keeps you on edge at times. Ellie and Riley’s intuition as young spirits to explore and have a good time is executed perfectly through the performances of Ashley Johnson and newcomer Yaani King.

Gustavo Santaolalla returned to record new music for Left Behind. The new pieces suit the atmosphere and situation perfectly. There are many moments that become emotional from the brilliant mix between acting, script, and music.

There’s a certain something to Left Behind that makes it unique from the main game. The life of these characters, the music that kicks in at the perfect moment, the tension that couples with each infected encounter, the top-notch sound design and graphics – these are all mutual with the main game. However, there are things that feel exclusive to the campaign.

While it retains most of the core mechanics of The Last of Us, Left Behind manages to feel different. You won’t be punching your way out of encounters or revealing any arsenal in your backpack. You are Ellie – low on supplies and lacking experience to handle skirmishes the same way Joel does.

Unlike the main game, players are given the opportunity to tackle situations a little differently, but not to a huge extent. There will be skirmishes where hostile survivors and infected come across each other. You could wait it out and eliminate the rest of the hostiles or head in cautiously. It’s a neat scenario that isn’t worn-out by the end of the campaign.

Most of Left Behind lacks combat, which isn’t a bad thing. In fact, it’s beneficial to the final product. A chunk of this campaign could be labeled a “best friend simulator,” but labeling it to just that would be selling it short. There are enough distinctive twists on gameplay that makes it a unique experience. What surprised me the most was the replay value of some elements of the DLC.

Combat, while scarce, manages to be the low point. Sure, there are set pieces that feel necessary to the experience, but there’s one in particular that felt forced and troublesome. This particular set piece just feels like a cheap insert to incorporate combat into the mix.

Verdict: 9.0 out of 10

Crafted intricately with attention to detail and pacing, Left Behind proves to be a worthy entry to the canon. There is a lot of grace and charm to be found in the experience. Naughty Dog manages to again outstand with their blend of narrative and execution. It’s not what you’d expect in the fullest, but this is a story worth experiencing.

Chad Patrick is a freelance writer who is the BRICK MASTER! Follow him on Twitter.